About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
CSPAN 10
CNN 2
CNNW 2
CSPAN2 2
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 32
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)
a right to your religion. no help from the government at all on friday. >> this is part what have kathleen sebelius had to say. she said, today the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while reporting religious concerns. the administration believes it has met the concerns. >> well, shannon, for the many people whose religious rights are violated by this mandate, many of them have sued. they have been waiting for well over a year for something very simple, an exemption from the mandate. simply, that's what we do with people who have religious objections to laws. we exempt them. that's what these people have been waiting for and that's not what they got. the exemption that only applies to a house of worship was not expanded one inch. so the administration didn't do anything for the exemption or the business owners like hobby lobby. all they really did was propose a bookkeeping measure for certain religious organizations that may not really solve the problem at all. it wasn't a good feds for the re
in the classrooms, particularly say on the subject of religion? >> well, in the hearing, i asked the question about a less on on islam that was sent to me by an enterprising parent and let me share this with you, alisyn, it was parents doing their homework and trying to get information that brought this to our committee's attention and so they found this lesson on islam and in texas we do teach all religions and students should learn about all religions, parents, i found it odd a full lesson on islam and not equal on christianity or any other religion. in the last segment, the answer was we changed that and that's not the program now and that's the danger of online learning, online learning is the future and it's terrific that, that's how students learn. if they're learning history and see the name patrick henry and it's linked to patrick henry, they can go in areas they can never go in a textbook. >> that's the wave of the future, so, how can you be sure of what the kids in texas and across the country are going to be taught. how can you change this curriculum now? >> yes. >> well, we're going to
to come together and to come up with a reasonable solution here that would not infringe on a religion and also keep women protected and you had those i guess attempting to enflame this as a war on religion and the other things that were accused. when we talked with you and when you became a household name at the beginning of this story. >> yeah. this is just another step in what the administration has said that they wanted to do, which you're exactly right. to find a path forward to cover health care without infringing on a potential concern. and i think what's important to note is some of the folks continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employer who is are private companies not religiously affiliated employers in any way but the boss has a particular religious concern and they want to deny their employees particular types of health care. if you take a step back and think about that, that's you work at a restaurant, you work at a store and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns someone might have
in the battle with some religion non-profit organizations over the requirement they offer birth control coverage in their health insurance packages. while today's shift is significant, it also leaves out a big group that is also suing the government. chief washington correspondent james rosen tells us what triggered the change. >> under the new rules proposed by health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius non-profit religious employers will be able to opt out of the obamacare mandate of female contraceptive in the healthcare plan. instead insurers will be required to provide coverage, including standard birth control and items like the morning after pill. the white house says the modifications meet president obama's overarching goals. >> we had to ensure the women have access to preventative services like contraception. the policy also respects religious beliefs. >> catholic league bill donahue held the announcement as a sign of good will toward the catholic community. because the private sector firms with religious objections are not covered by the proposal and many insurance firms ar
's affiliated in a nonprofit way with a religion and against your beliefs, for example if you are a university or if you are a health system, they have made accommodations to ensure that you don't have to be involved in the direct provision the payment, the contracting the referral or any of the arrangements for ensuring that -- >> what about -- what about private companies like hobby lobby? the owners object on, you know, moral reasons that they don't want to pay for contraception for their employer, employees. >> i know folks have tried to talk about this as a religious liberty issue. that feels a bit like a smoke screen for folks who are really trying to impose their views about birth control on others. there is nothing in this law which in any way impedes an employer's ability to exercise his or her own religious beliefs. but there is nothing which says that religious liberty requires you to impose your beliefs on others. and by allowing for these accommodations for religious institutions but ensuring that -- in the private sector, if you are a business that's operating in the public secto
, tribe, religion, region, whatever, your industry these days. politics is a lot about power. but we always hope that some people in the discussion of politics and policy will stand for something bigger, something broader. like the public interest, freedom and justice, the ideals of the declaration of the independence and the pledge of allegiance. we hope in washington that's what think tanks do. think tanks are separate from abstracted from the day-to-day struggles for either political power or special interests benefits from public policy. obviously, there are some who do that better than others. in the ideal of the think tank is committed to the public interest, even though we may disagree what the public interest is. some think tanks insist they don't have a world view a perspective, a political philosophy. they are just about analyzing and seeing what works. i'm in favor of that. but to define if something is working you have to define what the goals you seek to achieve. is freedom one of the goals that policy ought to enhance? is justice? is social progress? widespread prosperi
into the seventh day. >>> leon panetta talks about his catholic religion. >> remores of muhammed ali's death are premature. >> good morning to you. i'm richard lui. we begin with a developing tragedy in southern california. a bus carrying a tour group from tijuana collided with two other vehicles killing eight and injuring dozens more. authorities say the driver reported brake problems as the bus came down the mountain. it rear ended a car before flipping and hitting a pickup truck that was hauling a trailer. passengers described the scene. >> starts to move so fast, and the people start screaming.
that works. the other goal is to protect religions from doing something they believe is morally wrong. my own belief is that the solution the obama administration reached here is win/win. i say this to someone who believes in the clinton case, that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. getting birth control to women for free will keep it rare. to keep the catholic church out of that transaction keeps it closer to the goal. this is what good, smart, progressive, morally upright politics is all about. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "politics nation" with al sharpton starts right now. >> thanks, chris. and thanks to you for tuning in. i'm live tonight in sacramento, california. tonight's lead, america versus the nra. today, president obama took his fight for gun safety outside of washington. calling for action. debunking the nra lies and making sure everyone knows we can't wait for change. >> we don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something. if we've got lobbyists in washington, claiming to speak for gun owners, saying something different, we n
. the other goal is to protect religions from doing something they believe is morally wrong. my own belief is that the solution the obama administration reached here is win/win. i say this to someone who believes in the clinton case, that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. getting birth control to women for free will keep it rare. to keep the catholic church out of that transaion keeps it closer to the goal.
on religion. it is dropping a controversial health care form provision requiring religiously affiliated provision to cover cont contraceptions as part of the plans. jessica yellin is joining us with detalils. what is the latest then front, jessica? >> hi, wolf. this policy is meant to help those organizations like catholic universities that offer their own insurance policies, and self-insure, but object on moral grounds to offer contraception. does the policy go far enough? the jury is still out. >> medals of science -- >> reporter: obama administration officials say that proposed guidelines would ensure that women get contraception for free, and no objecting religious oorganization would have to pay for it, and a seemingly perfect compromise. >> we had to ensure that women have access to preventive services like contraception, and that the policy also respects religious beliefs. >> the policy would allow a self-insured organization like a catholic university to opt-out of providing birth control, and another insurance company would give employees birth control for free. >> this clarifi
. the state has become the major religion in this country. the icons in washington -- they have to destroy every aspect of people who hold to a higher moral authority. host: the headline in this morning "the wall street journal" -- castle in michigan, on our lands for democrats. -- ethel in michigan, on our line for democrats. caller: my question is, what happened between the separation between church and state? i believe this is more of a legal issue than a religious issue. the religious issue is for the contraceptive. i can understand that. why is this being mixed in with state issues? he did not have to take them if you do not want them, if you do not believe in them. don't use them. i just cannot understand why this does not go away. i am really quite tired of it all. thank you. host: more from the article in this morning's "the wall street journal." they write -- the new rules would require insurers to pay the up-front cost. our next call comes from carol in ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am totally against what the catholic church and republicans are doing a
the swamp and what it does, it is radicalizing people that are standing up against militants using religion as a mobilizing force. so i think that drones as an instrument may have had some secrecy in terms of position, but -- and it's like saying, well, we can't allow u.s. f-16s to come in, we use our own to run anti-terror operations when we can, when we are able to move the population and protect them. so drones are now -- we don't see them as productive at all. >> what do you tell the germ's staff -- what do you tell the staff -- >> you need to be a fly on that committee wall. >> jonathan. >> i think we are all. on the same page. members of the general's staff on where the future of this -- pakistan has to take ownership of all anti-terror operations, absolutely all of them for them to be sustainable and to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of our people. you know, there have been a lot of drone strikes next door also. and in any case, you know that al qaeda is the whole al qaeda high valleys is pretty much through our cooperation and joint efforts. and that's something this administrati
together who did not usually come together. we were not bounded in a common race or religion. we are not a theocracy. we are not a minority. this nation was born with the ideals that a united people, but these ideals compel every generation to be more inclusive and welcoming. we realize this country was not a zero some political nation. in fact, the more we open up this country to inclusion, the better we are. women joining the work force has not diminished men. it expands our economy and opportunity for all. the education of poor people in the inner-city does not take away from others, it expands our economy and makes us all do better. this is the ideal of our country. as the rabbi would tell me, the jewish saying, that jews together are strong, but jews with other people are invincible. he african saying that spiderwebs united can tie up a line. the very principle of this country, one of my advisers told me one of the fundamental principles of islam. the oneness of the community. we recognize dependency and see strength. that became the problem solving idea that i took on. i be
religions. unquote. the mission statement i just quoted translates into a comprehensive effort to penetrate to influence, otherwise subvert our american civil society. a form of government, a governing institutions. that explanatory memorandum i just quoted from was written on may 19, 1991, by a top muslim brotherhood operative, -- operative. now, though the justice department has established in federal court during the holy land foundation trials in dallas texas, that the groups identified by the muslim brotherhood in their memo are, quote, their organizations, end quote, a number of them and their successors have been treated by the obama administration as key interlock tors -- interlocutories in dealing with jihad. and believes in this administration, believe that these muslim brotherhood front organizations are legitimate representatives of the muslim -american community. they have enabled the muslim brotherhood to recruit and to show others, look, we are the ones that the white house trusts. we could call the white house. we can call and tell them we have -- there are three people who
, they would learn about each other's religion. at the boxing match, just before the bell rang, one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the rabbi nudged the priest and asked what that meant. the priest says, it does not mean a thing if he cannot fight. [laughter] we bless ourselves with the hope that everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean a damn thing unless you are willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a damn thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream, a dream my parents had, a dream of giving our children a better life, a dream of always maintaining a government of, by, and for people. that course of duty is now passing to a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for that better future. thank you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting.
at the washington hilton for the official start of the national prayer breakfast. our religion correspondent lauren green live in our washington bureau. any big announcements this morning, lauren? >> reporter: jon, one surprise to many people, except the white house inner circle was the president's announcement his long time faith advisor would be leaving his post tomorrow. dubois is a young ministers whose face was not known to people outside of religious groups. he headed the president's faith based office. was buy by his side during the campaign and first term. dubois is known as the president's personal faith advisor. >> every morning he sends me, via e-mail, a daily meditation, a snippet of scripture, for me to reflect on, and it is meant the world to me and despite my pleas, tomorrow will be his last day in the white house. >> reporter: the president made no mention why dubois is leaving. not uncommon in second term for staff to do so. my sources say the white house will announce tomorrow where dubois is headed, jon? jon: did the president touch on policy at all in this breakfast? >> reporter
time. it does not matter whether the person is jewish or whether they are any religion. that is a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. we have got to get over this sensitivity. it keeps people from saying what they really believe. i am reminded of a successful young businessman. he loved to buy his mother exotic gifts for mother's day and ran out of ideas. then he ran across these birds. they cost $5,000 apiece, they could dance, they could sing, they could talk. he bought two of them and send them to his mother, could not wait to call him. what did you think of those birds? she said, they were good. [laughter]he said, no, no, you did not eat those birds. they cost $5,000 -- they could dance, sing, talk. she said, they should have said something. [laughter]that is where we end up to if we do not speak up for what we believe. what we need to do -- [applause]what we need to do in this pc world is forget about unanimity of speech and unanimity of thought. we need to concentrate on being respectful to those people with whom we disagree. that is when we begin to make real pro
they are getting religion. in fact, now it's allowing us to have a discussion where there is an acknowledgement of how much has gone into boarder security. that will be a continuing efforts, but there is a huge political, again, economic add vantsage to us if we have a sensible immigration policy with the path to citizenship. the folks who are here many of them have been working. we can get them to be out in the open rather than in the shadows and and they are taxpayers and many of them are very talented. it's going to allow families to be together and probably so i think there is a lot of interest here on the democratic side in a growing awareness on the republican side somehow same way we have to address this in a substantial way. >> wait one other issue congressman. the new york sometimes is reporting that you have introduced legislation dealing with a special benefit sort of that was given one california pharmaceutical company understand obamacare that you are trying to get rid of? >> slipped in, in the fiscal cliff negotiations at the 11th hour. over on the se
for your race or your tribe or your religion or your ideology or your region, whatever, your industry, these days, policy, politics is a lot about power. but we always hope that some people in the discussion of politics, and especially policy, will stand for something bigger, something broader, like the public interest, like freedom and justice, the ideals of the declaration of independence and constitution and the pledge of allegiance. and ideally we hope in washington that that's what think tanks do, that think tanks are separate from abstracted from the day-to-day struggles for either political power or special interest benefits from public policy. and, obviously, there are some who do that better than others but in the platonic ideal of the think tank is one committed to the public interest and even though we may disagree about what the public interest is. some think tanks insist they don't have an ideology, and worldview of perspective, a political philosophy. they are just about analyzing and seeing what works. i'm all in favor of analyzing things and seeing what works, but to d
need to drain the swamp. instead it radicalizes people standing up using religion as a mobilizing force. host: the ambassador made a comment yesterday at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. we covered it. c-span.org to what spoken. the washington times said the ambassador said that the attacks violate pakistani sovereignty and international law. the reaction from the aclu has been besthis -- ronnie in orlando, florida, independent. caller: thank you very much. i think it is absolutely outrageous, but it is just a continuation of outrageous policy that have gone on for the last almost 12 years now. i have to say that the previous caller, it just breaks my heart , in thinking that people that are objecting to these policies are against president obama along racial lines. this is not a racial issue. this is not a democrat versus republican issue. this is an issue that we americans are losing our democracy. our constitution is being shredded. gue natione nat internationally. in order to turn this around, which we have got to do, we did not lose 3,000 the law 9/11 to an outs
of rights. free interests of religion is what is under attack here. all it does is put regulatory language what was proposed a year ago by the administration as a so-called compromise. it is not. it's a farce. it's an accounting trick. catholic university, for example, is compelled by the state under obama care to offer health insurance and the health insurer is compelled by the state to provide coverage of contraceptives. the cost obviously is going to be shifted back to catholic university and its students. simple police officer a gimmick. the worst part how you define worship. churches you worship on sunday are completely exempt because that would be outrage. the secularists at the department of h.h.s. religious only the place where you go on sunday. only a place where you worship god. but if you are a catholic soup kitchen, where you are doing god's work, that's not considered religious. that from and of itself is an outrage. >> the crux of this is that nonprofits hobby horse. >> hobby lobby? >> the craft store. >> the cavity craft store which they are not part of this provision as wel
, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. we have to continue to do that. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not have an up-to-date broadcast
when i talk about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not ha
, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability deserve to be safe and protected from physical violence, and that's what this reauthorization would help to do. mr. president, finally let me say that this is not and never should be a partisan issue. violence, domestic assaults do not discriminate between republicans and democrats, independents and greens, or people who are not politically active at all. this is an equal opportunity crime that harms people regardless of their political affiliation, their profession, their location, their status in life. it is an issue that deserves bipartisan support. and i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together and pass this important bill. i recognize that there may be some provisions of this bill which are controversial, but surely we can come together in support of the goal of this vital legislation. we can work out differences if not on the senate floor, then in conference with the house. but surely we can come together and reauthorize this law that has made such a difference to so many in our country.
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)